Canon in Active Development of EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS [CR2]

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<p>We’re told that Canon continues active development of an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS.</p>
<p>At the time of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II development, there were prototypes with IS being tested alongside the non-IS version that was eventually released.</p>
<p>We’re told the previous development of an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS raised concerns about weight and size of the lens. Which makes some sense once you consider the target market, which is generally event photographers that have to carry and use the lens for 12 hours or more on some occasions.</p>
<p>This tells us that weight and size will have to be reduced before we see such a lens from Canon.</p>
<p>There is no known announcement date, and we doubt we’d see such a lens in 2017, but it’s good to know that development continues.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[MaxFoto]

YES!!!!

 

[tianxiaozhang]

They like it slow don't they...

 

[JMZawodny]

YES, YES !!

 

[H. Jones]

Honestly, if they can keep the size and IQ similar, if not better, I'd love to have it. Most of the news photography I do doesn't need IS, since it mainly requires your subject being sharp and frozen while moving, but I can think of plenty of times where IS would have been handy for stationary subjects or panning shots.

That said, while that would be handy, I wouldn't really be interested in lugging a lens the size of Nikon's VR 24-70 for something I might get occasional use out of. I think Canon obviously has the right idea when it comes to this though.

 

[Cochese]

Dear Canon:
Nobody gives a S___ if the lens is a little bit heavier so long as it's quality is worth the exorbitant price you're going to charge for it over your competitors.

Signed: Literally everybody forever.

Seriously, just give us a fast, sharp, wide lens; include IS and we'll all be happy. For those who don't want the extra weight, they've still got the wonderful 24-70 2.8 II.

 

[smithcon]

After becoming smitten with a 5-axis IBIS-equipped camera from another manufacturer, I would much rather see Canon incorporate IBIS -- one intelligent enough to work in concert with lens IS for their existing and future IS equipped lenses. I would love to have that option when working with my non-IS Canon lenses, and what the heck, with my IS-equipped EOS lenses as well.

 

[jolyonralph]

So, we're looking at probably close to $2,500 for this lens, weight well north of a kilo, and image quality no better than the 24-70 II (because, well, you can't really top that)

It's going to be hard to justify the extra expense upgrading from the current 24-70 to this one.

Yet I know I will have to do exactly that

 

[YuengLinger]

"It's deja vu all over again." Yogi Berra

 

[justaCanonuser]

Just remember the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD: only 825 g with a very good IS (VC), Canon's current F 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM weighs only 20 g less. I never understood the argument that Canon abandoned IS because they were concerned about weight. If the Mark III version of this lens would include IS, I'd really make up my mind about upgrading to Canon's zoom. The Tamron is quite an impressive lens, given its price, but its AF isn't too reliable so I did lose some otherwise nice shots with it (yes, I AFMAd my Tamron).

 

[Ozarker]

I wouldn't care about weight. For some reason I like heavy lenses. I've not missed IS on my 24-70 f/2.8L II, but it would still be tempting if I didn't have s o many other lenses I want.

Thank you Canon, for all your great lenses!

 

[Ozarker]

Just remember the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD: only 825 g with a very good IS (VC), Canon's current F 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM weighs only 20 g less. I never understood the argument that Canon abandoned IS because they were concerned about weight. If the Mark III version of this lens would include IS, I'd really make up my mind about upgrading to Canon's zoom. The Tamron is quite an impressive lens, given its price, but its AF isn't too reliable so I did lose some otherwise nice shots with it (yes, I AFMAd my Tamron).

A III version would never include IS. This would be it's own lens series.

 

[slclick]

They like it slow don't they...

Yes, that's how you get it right.

 

[ahsanford]

And in other news, I am in Active Eyeroll for such news being story worthy.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

We’re told that Canon continues active development of an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS. At the time of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II development, there were prototypes with IS being tested alongside the non-IS version that was eventually released.

Makes 100% sense. This is not their first rodeo -- an IS lens would have been either co-developed and put on moth balls or (at a minimum) space/size for the IS componentry would have been 'allowed for' in the original non-IS design.

We’re told the previous development of an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS raised concerns about weight and size of the lens. Which makes some sense once you consider the target market, which is generally event photographers that have to carry and use the lens for 12 hours or more on some occasions.

..because the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses event photographers carry are much lighter, I agree.

This is where the story breaks down. I am skeptical of the reason being offered here. Pros grab f/2.8 zooms despite being considerably heavier than f/4 zooms, but the added few ounces of IS weight would scare them off? Nonsense.

I fully appreciate the need to lighten everything any small way we can, but I'd contend the value of the feature dwarfs the burden it adds to the total weight. People would gleefully pony up their cash for such a lens, even if it was 4-6 ounces heavier than the non-IS version.

I believe Canon hasn't offered as a 24-70 f/2.8L IS because they believe it won't be as profitable as commercializing other new lenses or because Nikon's 24-70 2.8 IS offering hasn't flipped many Canon people over and isn't a major threat to market share.

- A

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

Can't believe V2 of the Tamron is coming out and Canon still doesn't have a response launched. I think it shows how out of touch they are with video shooters, especially. I see the Tamron on C100's, 5D's, and adapted to A7's all the time. Canon really missed the boat not offering a stabilized 2.8 standard zoom to go with their DPAF tech, as those doing video have to choose between VC (Tamron) or reliability with DPAF (native Canon glass). I'd probably own Canon's response if there was one instead of the two Tamrons that are currently sitting in my bag, but by the time one is available the financial loss in switching won't be worth it. (And surely Canon wasn't naive enough to think that their EF-S 17-55 was the professional option for video shooters who often own full-frame cameras.)

Having recently completed a survey from CPS, I can tell you they seem rather desperate to get data on why their members own and use 3rd party mirrorless cameras, especially in regards to video...

 

[hendrik-sg]

All canon will tell us, is pure marketing talk. So no creditability at all, for any reason why they are the only major manufacturer, who not offers such a lens.

Few things i would set as a fact:

- Recently, canon did not release any lens which is not really great, at least on the higher level lenses (questionable if the new 24-105 belongs to them).
- so maybe they would not release such a lens, if it is not as goood as the current one (the nikon is much worse then the unstabilized one).
- it's not about "adding" IS, it would be a completely different construction, and as it seems a complicated one with difficult compromises.
- maybe, all should buy the current one first, and the IS version is hold back. This is NOT a fact, we do not know it. But in this difficult market they probably would not refuse to sell what they can produce.
- they would sell it expensively
- i would like to buy one

What we not know, maybe there is someting even more spectacular in the making.... maybe F2.0 zooms with with smaller zoom ratios AND IS. as it seems we get the first 85 1.4 IS lens available, and the 11-24 is quite innovative as well.

 

[ahsanford]

Can't believe V2 of the Tamron is coming out Nikon has a 24-70 f/2.8 IS and Canon still doesn't have a response launched.

Fixed that for you.

Canon, as a general rule, doesn't ever respond to Tamron. (One might argue they are just barely beginning to respond to Sigma after a killing streak of a number of years now.)

- A

 

[james75]

After becoming smitten with a 5-axis IBIS-equipped camera from another manufacturer, I would much rather see Canon incorporate IBIS -- one intelligent enough to work in concert with lens IS for their existing and future IS equipped lenses. I would love to have that option when working with my non-IS Canon lenses, and what the heck, with my IS-equipped EOS lenses as well.

That would be nice if the rumored 6dii had in body stabilization, but I'm just dreaming. Just bought recently a very clean used copy of the 24-70ii and it's a great lens. I wish it had IS, as I don't have the steadiest hands.

 

[rang]

Per the last few years and Canon's progress in actually getting the IS version of this lens *on the street*. For years it was "oh you don't need IS in a mid range zoom (forget the idea of following around any wedding photog worth their salt around a fast paced wedding) .... "Yada, yada, yada" to this rumor.

Watch what Tamron does with their current version on the 24-70 f2.8 VC. It should follow what they did with their 70-200 f2.8 VC *G2* which is very nice. Should address the summer time blues.

-Sorely disappointed Canon shooter.